China could defeat US in East Pacific conflict by 2020: Russian analyst

This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: China could defeat US in East Pacific conflict by 2020: Russian analyst

Originally Posted by WillyPete

Over 150 posts before anyone mentions the debt. Best sign that the original article is about what is literally possible, rather than what is actually realistic.

Whatever we think of the Chinese government, our economies are intertwined.

If they aggressively attacked our interests (violently seizing regional power unannounced would qualify in my book,) we could withhold all payment until after the dust settled, and then renegotiate the debt, likely in our favor.

Ceasing those payments is going to have a much more immediate and dramatic effect on China than us. Factories there would start closing immediately. The U.S. would get hurt too, but not to the same extent.

So WHY would China attack our interests? They can only hurt themselves.

Though I'd rather not, it could be argued a brief conventional dust-up with China (with them as the aggressor) is exactly what our economy needs. We could negotiate the debt, stimulate the economy, and "rightsize" the Chinese military.

This is lingering Cold War FUD.

Not honoring the debt to China would have devastating effects on the USA - and is less rational than someone claiming they will stick it to the financial industry by refusing to pay their mortgage, car payment, credit bills and utility bills.

In the instance of China, the greatest damage would be lose of the one thing most holding the economy together - and that is the reputation of the American dollar and stability of the American economy. That would vanish, and so would our economy.

Otherwise, within weeks every retailer in the USA would be closing for lack of inventory. There are not idle USA factories to just turn back on. Already suffering, those retailers would quickly go defunct and defaulting on their business loans - plus the massive layoffs those would cause - and the other residual unemployment that followed.

T-note sales would go flat, causing a rapid increase in interest rates, just as there would be a rapid increasing in inflation, shattering people's savings and retirement funds. The radical increases in inflation, unemployment and interest rates would devastate the housing and real estate markets, shattering the banking and financial industries.

Oil would go off the dollar standard, another permanent devastating consequence to the value of the dollar.

China, of course, would seize all American assets in China, such as the 15 GM factories built with bailout money (13 USA auto factories closed) and GM all but instantly back in bankruptcy - since GM now sells more vehicles in China than the USA.

The stockmarket would crash.

Overall, the result would not be a depressive, but massive inflation where money became all but worthless.

China is manufacturing self sufficient. The USA is manufacturing dependent. China would be harmed, but China being a totalitarian society familiar with hardship would survive. The USA would be shattered and still another effect would be the country going radically to the left and socialism as people tried to use government to get a piece of the radically shrinking pie. Investment money would flee the USA.

Declaring we would not honor debts to China as a winning strategy is unbelievably naïve.

Re: China could defeat US in East Pacific conflict by 2020: Russian analyst

It is foolish to think that armed conflict with China would be measures on planes versus planes and ships versus ships is also extremely foolish.

China has no real external enemies nor terrorism dangers. The USA and West does. China could arm and inflame much of the world. It could turn Iran into a nuclear power overnight. It could pour sophisticated small and medium arms to every militant and terrorist organization in the world, and cause civil wars and revolutions in many areas of interest to us.

It is China, not the USA, that is the manufacturing giant and "war" with China obviously cannot include bombing China, since China is a nuclear power obviously with ballistic missile capacity. Thus, China could be massively producing weapons to give to surrogate allies - who are not allies with China but rather serve as allies for hatred of the USA and the West.

MOST countries would have compelling reasons to side with China to avoid the chaos China could send their way, and our allies would opt out trying to remain neutral. You do not see "our allies" sending their ships to the region, do you?

Re: China could defeat US in East Pacific conflict by 2020: Russian analyst

In terms of debt to countries, who the USA is MOST debted to is, of course, ourselves.

#2 is China, at $1.3 trillion.

#3 is Japan, at $1.1 trillion.

The debt to Japan is generally older and new growing debt is to China.

A reason we are dancing with Japan is likely mostly due to that debt. The USA is not in any position to pay off ANY debts. If Japan OR China calls in it's debt AND stops putting more money into the USA, the USA is really screwed.

Re: China could defeat US in East Pacific conflict by 2020: Russian analyst

Originally Posted by joko104

Declaring we would not honor debts to China as a winning strategy is unbelievably naïve.

I didn't suggest that. I suggested that if China acted violently and aggressively against us or our interests and lost, that renegotiating the debt would likely be part of the peace accords at the end of the conflict.

Of course the main point of my post was that China wouldn't attack for that very reason, amongst others.

Re: China could defeat US in East Pacific conflict by 2020: Russian analyst

Originally Posted by Montecresto

See. There you go again, what are you a soldier and every problem is solved by a war? I'm talking about diplomacy to evade war. As for China, what would you consider playing nice? Following international law. Because you're suggesting the US fly the middle finger to it and just kick ass and the innocents be damned.

the whole idea of the thread is a theoretical war between the USA and China....

‘This is not peace, it is an armistice for 20 years.’ (Ferdinand Foch. After the Treaty of Versailles, 1919).

Re: China could defeat US in East Pacific conflict by 2020: Russian analyst

Originally Posted by WillyPete

I didn't suggest that. I suggested that if China acted violently and aggressively against us or our interests and lost, that renegotiating the debt would likely be part of the peace accords at the end of the conflict.

Of course the main point of my post was that China wouldn't attack for that very reason, amongst others.

I think the question in reality is would we intervene on behalf of Japan.

Re: China could defeat US in East Pacific conflict by 2020: Russian analyst

Originally Posted by Montecresto

Right, and you want to move it from the theoretical to the real by telling the world and their international law to take a leap.

no the thread title is "China could defeat the USA in 2020"". My point being that yes they could cause the US a lot of trouble unless the US "takes off the gloves". I wasn't advocating law breaking or saying that the UN should take a leap as this is all theoretical. However if the US and China were to go to war it most certainty come under the title "total war: and in total war both sides tend to overlook laws they would normally abide by ( WW2 being a good example of this). China already don't care much for international law especially when it comes to human rights, pollution, trade, computer privacy etc. So what makes you think China would play by the rules in a conflict against the worlds biggest superpower?

‘This is not peace, it is an armistice for 20 years.’ (Ferdinand Foch. After the Treaty of Versailles, 1919).